From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Sat Mar 06 2010 - 10:12:45 CST
I was inviting you to provide some text. :-)
P.
-----Original Message-----
From: Vinodh Rajan [mailto:vinodh.vinodh@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 12:43 AM
To: Peter Constable
Cc: mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp; indic@unicode.org; unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: [unicode] Unicode Standard for Oriya Ya-Phala
Thanks for the clarifications.
//Perhaps you'd like to propose additional text for the block description to make this clarification?)//
It would be great, if you guys do this so..
V
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:
> As noted, (y)ya occurs with both post-base and sub-base conjoined
> forms -- usually the post-base form, but at least with DA the sub-base
> form also occurs. (I don't think it helps to get into whether the two
> are pronounced the same or different, or what the historical
> derivations of each are; so, I use "(y)ya" to reflect the ambiguity
> we're trying to resolve.)
>
> As noted, Table 9-16 of TUS 5 shows 0B5F used to display the post-base
> form. This is consistent with p. 55 of the TDIL document. And as noted
> the TDIL document shows the subjoined form represented using 0B2F. I
> take that to be consistent with what is in Unicode, even though it
> doesn't state that explicitly. (Perhaps you'd like to propose
> additional text for the block description to make this clarification?)
>
> When I was working on the Kalinga font, I checked a number of sources including dictionaries and primers, and I also consulted with various Oriya experts. While it was clear that there was some confusion over the ambiguity, there was a definite consensus that the post-base ya-phalaa should be represented using 0B5F. But it was also necessary to support the sub-joined form as well; the TDIL document reflected the way to do that contrastively with the post-base form: use 0B5F for the post-base form, but 0B2F for the sub-base form.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
> On Behalf Of mpsuzuki@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:20 AM
> To: Vinodh Rajan
> Cc: indic@unicode.org; unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: Re: [unicode] Unicode Standard for Oriya Ya-Phala
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:26:46 +0530
> Vinodh Rajan <vinodh.vinodh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>What is the recommended combination to produce the secondary-ya
>>conjunct in Oriya ?
>
>>Is it YA or YYA ?
>
>>Unicode Oriya fonts seems to have no standard in this regard.
>
>>What does Unicode standard dictate about this ?
>
> Your investigation is quite interesting. I think, Unicode standard specification does not answer to your question strictly.
> Unicode 5.2.0 p.288 Table 9-16, the second consonant is coded by "YYA" (U+0B5F). It seems that some experts recognized it as Unicode recommends to use YYA (U+0B5F):
>
> http://lists.sarovar.org/pipermail/oriya-group/2006-August/000209.html
>
> In another document:
> http://tdil.mit.gov.in/OriyaScriptDetailsApr02.pdf
> there is a long list of conjunct consonants from p.54-57.
>
> YYA (U+0B5F) is included in Table-2 (p.55), the list of "consonant signs". 4 examples are listed, YYA is always rendered as post-base form. Table-2 has no example for "YA".
>
> KA (U+0B15) + virama (U+0B4D) + YYA (U+0B5F)
> SSA (U+0B37) + virama (U+0B4D) + YYA (U+0B5F)
> KHA (U+0B16) + virama (U+0B4D) + YYA (U+0B5F)
> GA (U+0B17) + virama (U+0B4D) + YYA (U+0B5F)
>
> So, it looks like using YYA for conjunct consonant is popular.
>
> But, YA (U+0B2F) is included in Table-4 (p.57), the list of syllables that subjoined consonant is rendered in base- below form. 1 example (DYA) is listed.
>
> DA (U+0B26) + virama (U+0B4D) + YA (U+0B2F)
> -> DA + ya-phala (base-below form)
>
> Table-4 shows alternate presentation for of DYA, as
>
> ( DA + virama ) + YA (normal form)
>
> But it does not list "DA (normal form) + YYA (post-base form)".
>
> If all of these rules have same weight, the post-base form should be
> coded by YYA, and the below-base form should be coded by YA?
>
> According to Jeroen Hellingman's note in 12 years ago:
> http://ldc.upenn.edu/myl/IndianScriptsUnicode.html
> it seems that this problem is not Oriya-specific. I have to study more about the history how they are introduced.
>
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
>
>
>
-- http://tamilcc.org/thoorihai/thoorihai.php
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 06 2010 - 10:20:54 CST